#superkoalabear

[frevandrest]

I have to ask how accurate is that post on Camille. There are some disturbing details. I thought he was a great guy?

The post in question is this.

In short: No, that post on Camille is not particularly accurate. (I am talking, of course, of the facts expressed in it, not the OP's personal feelings). It gets some things right, but many of the facts are incorrect. A lot seems to be based on Hilary Mantel's work, which is not reliable nor correct.

I've been feeling blah due to the vaccine shot and didn't have the energy to properly address that post. I am working on it and I hope to have it up soon. That being said, it is important to remember that historical people are complex and, well, real people. They are not their later historical reputation. For some reason, Camille is remembered as this wholesome, idealistic guy and the purest figure of the Revolution. He is often infantilized to the point people don't realize he was only 4-5 months younger than Danton. The real man was more complex. I know the post makes him seem like some sleazy opportunist, so the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. He was a grown man - with a sharp, unforgiving pen - and he knew how to use it. He had a temperament. He did gross stuff (the anecdote about giving Elisabeth Duplay porn comes to mind). He was messy and human, like the rest of them. I don't really know why, out all of them, Camille gets remembered in such cutesy, PG terms, but I'd say it's a disservice to the real guy.

[frevandrest]

A weird question, so feel free to ignore: ever thought about who you'd be in the french revolution? Like what social standing, class, political opinion?

I don’t mind it at all, I love questions! And to answer: I never thought about it, not much in any case. I did think about my political stance, and I’ve concluded I’d probably be seen as some sort of an anarchist; I like direct action too much for anything else. In other words: idk how things would go for me in the year 1793/1794. 

In terms of class and social standing, I am (in reality) a combination of many different things, if we refer to ancestry. Part of my family is working class, but mostly well-educated middle class, and some of them were even aristocrats (Polish and Austrian, to be exact) and idk how that would go during frev. But I was raised in a big city by middle class parents so I feel I would be something along those lines. 

The catch is that, due to political and historical circumstances, I was raised by atheists in socialism, and this did have an influence on me, and I assume would influence my opinion during frev. 

I am pretty sure I wouldn’t be a royalist, but anything else is possible, more or less. I’d participate in riots, that much I’m sure of, since I participated in rl even as a teenager. I have a low tolerance for politicians and their bullshit, so I’d probably shout stuff from the galleries of the Convention and in the Jacobin club. I can see myself joining The Society of Revolutionary Republican Women (I think?) but I am not sure about anything else. I don’t see myself demanding more heads or accusing the government of being too soft, so I would probably not be a good example of “the people”, either. I’d probably annoy everyone (all the groups) and that wouldn’t serve me well, I suppose. But maybe I’d also go the other route and keep my mouth shut completely, because I’m more meek than I wish to be and I don’t think I have what it takes to be a revolutionary. 

[frevandrest]

What would you say to someone who hates Robespierre?

It depends on why someone hates Robespierre, and how much they know about the actual history. It’s one thing if a person has only a vague idea about a “proto Hitler/Stalin evil incarnate”, and another if they criticize some specific things that Robespierre actually did (and it’s not like there’s nothing to criticize).

[frevandrest]

I know about anthropology but how would it be possible to study frev through this discipline?

Ok, first of all, it’s important to know that when I say “anthropology”, I mean it in the European sense (socio-cultural anthropology, which studies culture). In North American sense, it can include anything from archaeology and biological anthropology to socio-cultural anthropology and linguistic anthropology. 

Since socio-cultural anthropology mainly focuses on the present, existing cultures, any study of frev would be inter-disciplinary. There are generally two ways to go:

1) Study specific aspects of culture from the late 18th century France/Frev (for example, how they understand concepts such as virtue, masculinity and femininity, sexuality; tensions between centre and periphery, the role of religion, etc.) 

2) Study how we, today, perceive frev and what it tells about us (for example, how today’s political situation makes frev ideas more appealing to young people, or changing attitudes towards Robespierre, SJ, etc. and what those can tell us about today’s understanding of politics, sexuality, masculinity, etc.)  

Both are very exciting to me, although #2 is more accessible to me atm because my French is too weak to tackle primary sources (and you can’t study frev properly without primary sources or sources in French). 

If we take anthropology in the North American sense, frev can be (and is) studied in different ways: analysis of material culture from the revolutionary period (archaeology), or studying human remains and DNA (biological anthropology), such as that study on Marat’s blood from l'Ami du Peuple copy he was holding when he got stabbed. 

[frevandrest]

Revolution fic, but everyone's a woman. Go!

Oh, I... I am flattered to receive this ask but I don't really write fics, although if I did, this would be an awesome subject. I can picture them vividly, and not just because of that face app.

This sort of a thing (changing gender or other key characteristics) is known as paradigmatic analysis. What are things that are altered with this change? There are so many elements for a great analysis.

Although one thing will have to be altered - female deputies will need to be a thing for this to work. Unless we want to have them working from behing the scenes, for their deputy brothers? Like imagine deputy Charles Robespierre and female Max in this situation.

In terms of romantic content, I am bad with smut, but I feel more comfortable writing f/f than m/m so maybe? There have to be some sweet moments between citizenesses Robespierre and Saint-Just.

Also, I'd probably name Max Isidora, because of the green eyes and "I" is a green letter for me. SJ... Well, she can't be Antoinette, can she? Unless...

[frevandrest]

If you could find similarities between individual revolutionaries and yourself, what would they be, and which one do you resemble the most?

Uuh.. none? I fear I wouldn’t be a good revolutionary. But if we’re here, let’s see about similarities with some of them:  Robespierre: Love for animals; glasses/nearsightedness; love for sweets; awkward around people; seen as a prude who can’t have fun.  Saint-Just: Lost father at the age of 10; if you hit a woman you die; self-insert teen fic Danton: ??? I like food? (only certain kinds but I guess it counts) Camille: Bi; better at writing than talking  Marat: Interest in science (but bad at it)

On this list, I suppose Robespierre? I know there are more frev people but I don’t know many details about their character to decide. 

[frevandrest]

Thanks for answering. I am sorry I used the word mistress, I didn't mean any disrespect to her, I think girlfriend sounded too modern. What are the undertones in his political writing about Therese?

No problem! I agree that “girlfriend” sound anachronistic; what they used at the time (and the word Saint-Just used himself) is “friend” (or lover, alternatively). This is how Saint-Just refers to lovers in that short story (”friend”).  

But “girlfriend” is the closest thing we have today to explain such a relationship; “lover” might be a good word to describe it (?) 

The undertones in his political writing (and in Organt, although, arguably, that one is also political don’t @ me) are about the way young people should be free to choose who they want to marry, and stuff that could be interpreted as his reaction to what happened to him. Since Saint-Just was known to be a person with a lot of pride, such humiliation must have left traces, even if he stopped caring about Therese by the time he wrote that stuff. 

I will need to dig up specific quotes tomorrow/these days and when I do, I’ll tag you. I would actually like to know what people think, because I might be seeing something that isn’t there. 

[frevandrest]

Your description of SJ... i'm researching for an assignment for frev and sources agree he was kinda unemotional and cold. not sure i see how dramatic and emotonal writing would be typical of him?

Hey, yes, I should have specified: I meant on his fiction writing, mainly. Although you see traces of this in his notes, particularly those that he never meant to publish (for all we know). This is perhaps best visible in a (probably unsent) letter to d’Aubigny. True, this was “early SJ” but you see traces of him losing it later, albeit, rarely, in his notes or reported behaviour. 

Saint-Just was known for his stoic/cold demeanor, but there is nothing to suggest that it came easily to him or that he was like that on the inside. I know the big narrative of SJ is “libertine youth, but then he did a total 180 turn and became cold and stoic”, but there is really nothing to show that it was a sudden personality transplant - a change of conduct and behaviour is more likely. There are not (m)any traces of his inner self during this later time, so the little we have, such as his notes in those last notebooks, are so interesting to see. The “story” is part of that, and, no matter how one chooses to read it, it shows that previously-established tendencies are still there and kind of speaks against the personality transplant theory.